av93

That's already done, shouldn't be difficult to add it to the main engine, without using it in 0 a.d? What happens if you add requirements to an autotech? Wouldn't work? My random wish would be the feature to hide the "cultural" name. There was a ticket somewhere.

Then @Genava55 what units could be added to the gauls ans britons rosters? Swordman infantry and spear cavalry? The first wasn.t added because it was argued that the sword was only for the noblemen (so they only have sword the infantry champs and cavalry units). And what about changing the two handed sword champion for the britons? Any idea?

I think that there was only the actor of the foundations, but there was not a socket building system, at least in the first alphas. (Maybe i.m wrong)

I think that is not that, just they can implement every random idea (including mine) and satisfy everyone.

I noticed that you didn't added the new cavalry meat gathering animation.

So, the team is not reluctant to add features to the engine that 0 a.d doesn't use?

Why shouldn't be added although it wasn't used in vanilla? Because it's more code to maintain?

Cavalry and chariots shows as garrisoned in fortress (probably in other fortifications too), and the upgrading tooltip of some units to experience levels, shows a citizien-soldier reference (saying that they gets worse working when leveling up)

That is the topic of theory colour that I mentioned some time ago. I wasn't referring to you, @Lion.Kanzen as you said in another post. A little bit off-topic (because it refers mostly to land textures), and also the mood of the discussion was too much tense, but is interesting enough.

A radical idea would be merging slinger and archer class, and the difference between them be purely cosmetical, for a easier balance. I know that a stone have a very different kind of damage that a arrow....

My suggestion in other topic: About siege towers. It's is possible for the engine to give to a garrisoned unit (that works with the turret component, so an archer in a wall) a token? So siege towers could have a restricted attack against them only? Capturing walls doesn't have too much sense, because later the player would delete it... Back to rams, remember that they have a garrison capacity: that and the combination of an army should defend the ram, no the ram should defend itself. (But a garrison ram could lead to odd situations like AoEII, that are used to transport and protect infantry from ranged attacks, like Teuton knights) BTW, it's important to tune correctly the balance with this siege unit: if it's too fragile, with the low attack of organic units against buildings, we'll playing stalemates. Remember that it's also available for almost all civs, for some of them only way to break sieges. I'm definitively for restricting the attack to buildings only. That could be tested and experimented, because walls and turrets are introduced in the second phase, but could maybe to problems (but make 2 phase more interesting). Siege engineers doesn't fit to all civs, and leads to imbalance more the siege capabilities to civs that already have strong sieges. The problem of buildable siege in the moment, could lead to try to sneak some units and then build a ram in a weak spot. It doesn't sound great at all. Maybe rams needs a slight speed nerf, but be careful about that. I don't know if changing /hack/pierce/crush into melee/ranged/siege would be better for design, but generally you want that units that are weak against melee attacks, are to all kinds of (except horses) Maybe this topic should merge with the other one: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/24411-battering-ram-overpowered/&tab=comments#comment-356053

I think that more than a conscious decision, it's the result of the attack and armour types design. Spearmen and swordsmen share the same stats except movement velocity and attack: swordsmen have 5.5 hack damage, but spearmen have 3.5 hack + 2.5 pierce damage. The fact that, to protect from ranged units that make only pierce damage (except slingers, that have 1 crush damage), rams have a level 50 of pierce armour, that negates the 99% of pierce damage, evading the fire from missile infantry, but also the damage of spears. Pikemen have 1 of hack damage, and 3 of pierce. That, coupled with the the ability to target units (because pathfinding, I can understand it), makes rams too much powerful for my taste. They are not invulnerable, btw. I suggest: - For rams: give spearman and pikemen a bonus against rams (no need of displaying this info in the description, because that could lead the players to think that this units have an anti-ram purpouse), slightly lower than the swords, so swordmen still being better than the other melee classes. -For siege towers: as Sundiata said, siege towers shouldn't be able to be captured, of the stance of the units against them should be first destroy, not capture. Their role shouldn't be mobile tanks in the open fields, but a siege engine: would be cool that they would be able to target with the ranged attack of the missile infantry, only the garrisoned infantry in the walls.

Never mind then.

But, right now, the engine can handle different animations when targeting different kind of targets, right?

If you agree, a torching attack instead of the hitting the building with the sword, could be a little more immersive, both for melee infantry and cavalry. I'm not suggesting any gameplay change. If you had played AoE3, you know what I mean (by the 5:20 mark, where it should start the video) I suppose that archers could use the same animation of their attack, just with added particles of fire. A video talking about the real history of fire arrows (from his POV) The problem would be slingers and skirmishers, that have a bigger range to throw torches. Melee infantry could break the walls with a pick (and cavalry could use an animation similar to the dismounted food gathering while chipping the fortification)

I think overall, the game has improved greatly in terms of balance, I'm enjoying playing again. IMHO, rams and siege towers will be the the hate target of this alpha. commands.txt

@Sundiata what about a "Berber" civilization? Would be too broader?

Could be "el juego". That would fit?

There will be a re-release to fix the lobby lag bug?

Wraitii work is being approved or there's no consensus enough?

Sorry, I think i'm wording bad. Didn't say that women played key roles: for example one could argue that gathering is far more important than hunting in the everyday diet in gathering-hunting societies (but it doesn't have the same symbolic and social value). If we speak about public roles, talking about power, English also have had female queens, that means that their society it's more egalitarian? It's not sufficient to conclude that, we need more evidences. But my main point is that never, the women never have act like an inverted patriarchy were man could be almost the possession of the woman like an object, or where women made almost all decisions or have almost all the power. As I said, I'm not negating that there have been more egalitarian societies than others. Polyandry could be worse , being the wife of a group of man. IRC, wasn't like an inverted polyiginia (where a man rule over a group of women). Take it with a grain of salt BTW

Everything that you're talking could be or its true, I would still believing my anthropology teachers. Sorry that I can't give a big argument for the position (I didn't attend to much family and gender classes), but if matriarchy exists or has been existed, my professors would have defended the existence (both male and female ones that I had). In past societies, how many female warchiefs and soldiers? (the existence of a few known doesn't prove an egalitarian society). Women is still seen has a link to the nature, to the house, and reproductive body? How many leads a "company"? How many are politicians (senate)? Consulted doesn't mean leading..., How are the rights about them (it's the same punishment infidelity for men and women)? I repeat, cultural diversity has been and it's big., there're some societies with some aspects regarding gender, more egalitarian than others, but there's none where women rules the public shpere, power and violence as men. That doesn't mean also that women in societies have been powerless. When there's power, there's also resistance. Sorry but as I said, I didn't attend too much this classrooms. Regarding African civs, apart from Carthaginians, Egyptians and Kushites (already implemented), I wonder what civs could be depicted besides Garamantians and Numidians? Basically we have Berbers, right? What about sub-Saharan civs or empires, @Sundiata?

Well, with some stone throwers that would be flatten easily. Actually it's a very bad strategy

There has not been a documented matriarchal society ever in the human history, in the sense of an inverted patriarchal society. You can find matrifocal, matrilineal or polyandric societies, and the gender equality between them varies, but nothing in the sense that woman have more power than male.

As you can see, there' s some overlapping in the screenshots: the first one is on the lobby, at the down right when looking a game that have been started. The text that overlaps a little bit is the time when the game started, with the numbers of players. Maybe it's because my resolution, or it's because the language? The second one is in the encyclopedia. The unit description of the spearman overlaps with the loot. Checked with other units, and they also overlaps the class and the loot.